Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this case brought by a former employee alleging discrimination and retaliation, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering judgment on a jury verdict for Plaintiff, awarding him back pay, emotional distress damages, front pay and attorney fees, holding that the district court erred in admitting hearsay, and the hearsay was not harmless.Plaintiff, a terminated employee, brought this action against his former employer and the employer's agents under the Iowa Civil Rights Ac, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him because of his age and his status as a cancer patient and retaliated against him due to his refusal to retire or quit. The jury entered a verdict for Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in admitting hearsay and the record failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice associated with the admitted hearsay evidence. View "Hawkins v. Grinnell Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss filed by Jimmy Banks, Warden of the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), as to Sharon Jones's complaint alleging that she had been terminated from her employment at the Varner Unit due to racial and gender discrimination, holding that Jones failed to state factual allegations that alleged a deprivation of any constitutional right.In her complaint, Jones, an African American woman, alleged that she was subjected to unlawful racial and gender discrimination because she was discharged under circumstances that similarly situated white or male employees were not. Banks filed a motion to dismiss based on constitutional sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and statutory immunity. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Banks was entitled to qualified immunity under Jones's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and statutory immunity against her state law claims. View "Banks v. Jones" on Justia Law

In 2002, the University hired LaRiviere as an Assistant Director of Building Maintenance. In 2011, LaRiviere learned that her supervisor was retiring and asked if the University would waive requirements that the position be publicly posted and filled by someone with an engineering degree. An administrator declined to disregard those requirements and hired Fuligni, a 30‐year Navy veteran who had served as a civil engineer with supervisory authority over hundreds of employees. LaRiviere filed two unsuccessful state court discrimination lawsuits. Fuligni hired Meyer to fill a newly created Associate Director position. LaRiviere reported to Meyer. Over the next several years, LaRiviere had several conflicts with coworkers and supervisors. Notwithstanding these incidents, Lariviere received positive performance reviews. In 2016, the University notified LaRiviere that her employment would end in a year. Fuligni transferred her to a different, newly-constructed building, LaRiviere identified a number of deficiencies. Maintenance immediately addressed those concerns, except for the high humidity. The University replaced LaRiviere, an African-American with a Caucasian man without a college degree. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. LaRiviere has not identified evidence that her ethnicity was the reason for her termination or of a causal connection between a protected activity and her termination. View "LaRiviere v. Board Trustees of Southern Illinois University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the final agency decision issued by the Montana Human Rights Commission (HRC) finding that Jerry James Bright was subjected to racial discrimination in his employment KB Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Snappitz (KB), holding the district court correctly affirmed the final agency decision and dismissed KB's petition for judicial review.On appeal, KB argued that the hearing officer made numerous incorrect findings of fact and that the HRC and district court wrongly upheld the hearing officer's decision. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the hearing officer's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and did not misapprehend the effect of evidence and that no mistake was made. View "KB Enterprises, LLC v. Montana Human Rights Commission" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a retaliation action under the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act (the “Whistleblower Act”) and a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against the Idaho State Police. Plaintiff Brandon Eller alleged the Idaho State Police (ISP) retaliated against him in two ways: (1) after he testified against another officer in a preliminary hearing; and (2) when he voiced objections to a new ISP policy requiring members of the Crash Reconstruction Unit to destroy draft and peer review reports. A jury awarded Eller $30,528.97 in economic damages under the Whistleblower Act and $1.5 million in non-economic damages for his negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. The district court then entered a memorandum decision and order reducing the award for Eller’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to $1,000,000 because Idaho Code section 6-926 capped the State’s liability for actions brought under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) at $500,000 per occurrence. Both Eller and ISP timely appealed on several grounds, and their appeals were consolidated. After its review, the Idaho Supreme Court held the district court incorrectly applied the ITCA to Eller’s claim because the Whistleblower Act supplanted it. The district court’s rulings that the Whistleblower Act bars non-economic damage awards and that the ITCA caps Eller’s damages were vacated, and the matter remanded for a partial new trial regarding non-economic damages solely under the Whistleblower Act. View "Eller v. Idaho State Police" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an order withdrawing the opinion and concurring opinion filed on February 9, 2018, and issued a new opinion and dissenting opinion.The panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by a former probationary police officer alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The panel held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim of violation of her rights to privacy and intimate association, because it was not clearly established that a probationary officer's constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association are violated if a police department terminates her due to her participation in an ongoing extramarital relationship with a married officer with whom she worked, where an internal affairs investigation found that the probationary officer engaged in inappropriate personal cell phone use in connection with the relationship while she was on duty, resulting in a written reprimand for violating department policy.Circuit precedent also did not clearly establish that there was a legally sufficient temporal nexus between the individual defendants' allegedly stigmatizing statements and plaintiff's termination. Therefore, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the lack of a name-clearing hearing violated her due process rights. Finally, plaintiff conceded that her sex discrimination claims were not actually based on her gender. View "Perez v. City of Roseville" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The panel followed the reasoning in its en banc decision EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), and held that Title VII does not bar compulsory arbitration agreements and section 1981 claims are arbitrable. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that plaintiff's section 1981 claims can be subjected to compulsory arbitration. View "Lambert v. Tesla, Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was eliminated as part of a reorganization from his job of nearly 30 years, he filed suit against DC Water, alleging claims under various federal and D.C. civil rights statutes. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DC Water, holding that petitioner's Americans with Disabilities Act and DC Human Rights Act claims were time-barred; plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing his Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims; it was within the district court's discretion to conclude that further discovery on plaintiff's only potentially viable claim—the one brought under 42 U.S.C. 1981—was unwarranted, given the lack of detail in plaintiff's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) declaration; and summary judgment on plaintiff's section 1981 claim was appropriate given the record before the district court. View "Haynes v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' claim that the 2017 amendments to Iowa Code chapter 20, the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), violate the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution, holding that the 2017 amendments withstood the constitutional challenges.The 2017 amendments resulted in new classifications that made many public employees lose significant statutory bargaining rights compared to other public employees with ostensibly similar jobs. A public employee union and some of its members filed this action against the State and the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) seeking injunctive and declaratory relief alleging that the amendments violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution and their right to freedom of association. The district court dismissed the action on summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the legislative classifications are not so overinclusive or underinclusive as to be unconstitutional and that the amendments do not violate constitutional rights of freedom of association. View "AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' claim that the 2017 amendments to Iowa Code chapter 20, the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), violate the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution, holding that the 2017 amendments withstood the constitutional challenges.The 2017 amendments resulted in new classifications that made many public employees lose significant statutory bargaining rights compared to other public employees with ostensibly similar jobs. Two unions representing public school employees filed this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the State, the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), and three PERB board members, alleging that the amendments violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The district court dismissed the action on summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the legislative classifications are not so overinclusive or underinclusive as to be unconstitutional under this Court's rational basis test. View "Iowa State Education Ass'n v. State, Iowa Public Employment Relations Board" on Justia Law